linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] mm,hwpoison: fix sending SIGBUS for Action Required MCE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210417134751.0bee9e73@alex-virtual-machine>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:47:51 +0800
From:   Aili Yao <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] mm,hwpoison: fix sending SIGBUS for Action
 Required MCE

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:43:17 +0900
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I wrote this patchset to materialize what I think is the current
> allowable solution mentioned by the previous discussion [1].
> I simply borrowed Tony's mutex patch and Aili's return code patch,
> then I queued another one to find error virtual address in the best
> effort manner.  I know that this is not a perfect solution, but
> should work for some typical case.
> 
> My simple testing showed this patchset seems to work as intended,
> but if you have the related testcases, could you please test and
> let me have some feedback?
> 
> Thanks,
> Naoya Horiguchi
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210331192540.2141052f@alex-virtual-machine/
> ---
> Summary:
> 
> Aili Yao (1):
>       mm,hwpoison: return -EHWPOISON when page already
> 
> Naoya Horiguchi (1):
>       mm,hwpoison: add kill_accessing_process() to find error virtual address
> 
> Tony Luck (1):
>       mm/memory-failure: Use a mutex to avoid memory_failure() races
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c |  13 +++-
>  include/linux/swapops.h        |   5 ++
>  mm/memory-failure.c            | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Hi Naoya,

Thanks for your patch and complete fix for this race issue.

I test your patches, mainly it worked as expected, but in some cases it failed, I checked  it
and find some doubt places, could you help confirm it?

1. there is a compile warning:
static int hwpoison_pte_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
			      unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
{
	struct hwp_walk *hwp = (struct hwp_walk *)walk->private;
	int ret;    ---- here

It seems this ret may not be initialized, and some time ret may be error retruned?

and for this:
static int check_hwpoisoned_entry(pte_t pte, unsigned long addr, short shift,
				unsigned long poisoned_pfn, struct to_kill *tk)
{
	unsigned long pfn;

I think it better to be initialized too.

2. In the function hwpoison_pte_range():
if (pfn <= hwp->pfn && hwp->pfn < pfn + PMD_SIZE) this check seem we should use PMD_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE or some macro like this?

3. unsigned long hwpoison_vaddr = addr + (hwp->pfn << PAGE_SHIFT & ~PMD_MASK); this seems not exact accurate?

4. static int set_to_kill(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long addr, short shift)
{
	if (tk->addr) {    --- I am not sure about this check and if it will lead failure.
		return 1;
	}
In my test, it seems sometimes it will hit this branch, I don't know it's multi entry issue or multi posion issue.
when i get to this fail, there is not enough log for this, but i can't reproduce it after that.

wolud you help confirm this and if any changes, please post again and I will do the test again.

Thansk
Aili Yao